New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 10 February 2016
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-1115-14110
MUSIC
DotMusic Limited

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result

Did Not Prevail

Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

10 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned03
43
10Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
0/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined by the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), as the community defined in the application does not demonstratesufficient delineation, organization, or pre-existence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points
under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear, straightforward
membership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.
Page 1

The community defined in the application is “delineated using established NAICS codes that align with the(i) characteristics of the globally recognized, organized Community, and (ii) .MUSIC global rotating multistakeholder Advisory Board model of fair representation, irrespective of locale, size or commercial⁄noncommercial status” (Application, 20A). The applicant lists over 40 categories of community member andidentifies each with a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code that is further narrowedby the applicant’s requirement that “only those that are defined by and identify with the sub-set of the
NAICS code that relates to “music” would qualify as a member of the Community.” According to theapplication, these categories, with the NAICS code cited by the applicant, are:• Musical groups and artists (711130)• Independent music artists, performers, arrangers & composers (711500)• Music publishers (512230)• Music recording industries (512290)• Music recording & rehearsal studios (512240)• Music distributors, promoters & record labels (512220)• Music production companies & record producers (512210)• Live musical producers (711130)• Musical instrument manufacturers (339992)• Musical instruments & supplies stores (451140)• Music stores (451220)• Music accountants (541211)• Music lawyers (541110)• Musical groups & artists (711130)• Music education & schools (611610)• Music agents & managers (711400)• Music promoters & performing arts establishments (711300)• Music promoters of performing arts with facilities (711310)• Music promoters of performing arts without facilities (711320)• Music performing arts companies (711100)• Other music performing arts companies (711190)• Music record reproducing companies (334612)• Music, audio and video equipment manufacturers (334310)• Music radio networks (515111)• Music radio stations (515112)• Music archives & libraries (519120)• Music business & management consultants (541611)• Music collection agencies & performance rights organizations (561440)• Music therapists (621340)• Music business associations (813910)• Music coalitions, associations, organizations, information centers & export offices (813920)• Music unions (813930)• Music public relations agencies (541820)• Music journalists & bloggers (711510)• Internet Music radio station (519130)• Music broadcasters (515120)• Music video producers (512110)• Music marketing services (541613)• Music & audio engineers (541330)• Music ticketing (561599)• Music recreation establishments (722410)• Music fans⁄clubs (813410) [Application, 20A]
The Panel notes that for some member categories noted above, the official NAICS code definition refers to abroader industry group or an industry group that is not identical to the one cited by the applicant. For
example, “Music accountants” (541211) is defined in the NAICS as “Offices of Certified PublicPage 2

Accountants”, and “Music lawyers” (541110) are defined as “Offices of Lawyers”.
In addition to the above-named member categories, the applicant also includes in its application a moregeneral definition of its community: “all constituents involved in music creation, production and distribution,
including government culture agencies and arts councils and other complementor organizations involved insupport activities that are aligned with the .MUSIC mission” (Application, 20D). The application materials
make clear that these entities, which may not be included in the list of member categories above, are strictly
related to the functioning of those other categories within the defined community’s music-related activities.
The applicant thereby bounds community membership by way of well-defined categories. Therefore thePanel has determined that the applicant provides a clear and straightforward membership definition. The
various categories relating to the creation, production, and distribution of music as well as the several otherrelated entities that contribute to these music-related operations are clearly delineated as per AGB guidelines
for the first criterion of Delineation.
However, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest” and there should be “an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.” Thecommunity as defined in the application does not demonstrate an awareness and recognition among its
members. The application materials and further research provide no substantive evidence of what the AGB
calls “cohesion” – that is, that the various members of the community as defined by the application are“united or form a whole” (Oxford Dictionaries).
While the Panel acknowledges that many of these individuals would share a “commonality of interest” inmusic, according to the AGB this is not sufficient to demonstrate the requisite awareness and recognition of
a community among its members. While individuals within some of the member categories may showcohesion within a category or across a subset of the member categories, the number of individuals includedin the defined community that do not show such cohesion is considerable enough that the community
defined as a whole cannot be said to have the cohesion required by the AGB.
The Panel therefore determined that there is insufficient awareness and recognition of a community among
the proposed community members, and that they do not therefore cohere as a community as required by the
AGB. The defined community as a whole, in all its member categories, does not meet the AGB’s
requirement for community awareness and recognition. Therefore, the Panel determined that the community
as defined in the application satisfies one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation, andtherefore does not receive credit for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
The community as defined in the application is disperse geographically and across a wide array of musicrelated activities, including all the categories listed in the previous section, such as creation, production, anddistribution, among others. The applicant has made reference to, and has documented support from, several
organizations that are a dedicated subset of the defined community. However, based on the Panel’s research,
there is no entity mainly dedicated to the entire community as defined by the applicant in all its geographic
reach and range of categories. Research showed that those organizations that do exist represent members ofthe defined community only in a limited geographic area or only in certain fields within the community.
According to the AGB, "organized" implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity, with documented evidence of community activities.” An “organized” community, according to
the AGB, is one that is represented by at least one entity that encompasses the entire community as definedby the applicant. There should, therefore, be at least one entity that encompasses and organizes individuals
and organizations in all of the more than 40 member categories included by the application. Based on
information provided in the application materials and the Panel’s research, there is no entity that organizes
the community defined in the application in all the breadth of categories explicitly defined.
Page 3

The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed) and must display an awareness andrecognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a obtain a sought-after genericword as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed to obtain a sought-aftergeneric word as a gTLD string.
The applicant has a very large degree of support from musical organizations. Many of these organizations
were active prior to 2007. However, the fact that each organization was active prior to 2007 does not meanthat these organizations were active as a community prior to 2007, as required by the AGB guidelines. Thatis, since those organizations and their members do not themselves form a cohesive community as defined in
the AGB, they cannot be considered to be a community that was active as such prior to 2007.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not fulfill the requirements forpre-existence.
1-B Extension
0/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the community as identified in the application did not meet the criterion for
Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the application
did not fulfill the requirements for size, nor demonstrate the longevity of the community. The application
received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size, both in terms of geographical reach andnumber of members. According to the applicant:
The Music Community’s geographic breadth is inclusive of all recognized territories covering regions
associated with ISO-3166 codes and 193 United Nations countries… with a Community ofconsiderable size with millions of constituents… (Application, 20A)
However, as previously noted, the community as defined in the application does not show evidence of“cohesion” among its members, as required by the AGB.1 Therefore, it fails the second criterion for Size.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application only satisfies one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
According to the application, “The Community has bought, sold, and bartered music for as long
1As stated previously, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest…There should be: (a) an awareness and recognition of a community among its members…” Failing suchqualities, the AGB’s requirements for community establishment are not met.
Page 4

(“LONGEVITY”) as it has been made”. The Panel acknowledges that as an activity, music has a long history
and that many parts of the defined community show longevity. However, because the community isconstrued, the longevity of the defined community as a whole cannot be demonstrated. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, the CPE process is conceived to identify
qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue priority toan application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a get a sought-after generic word as a gTLD
string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a proposed community construed to obtain a soughtafter generic word as a gTLD. As previously stated, the community as defined in the application does nothave awareness and recognition among its members. Failing this kind of “cohesion,” the community definedby the application does not meet the AGB’s standards for a community. Therefore, as a construed
community, the proposed community cannot meet the AGB's requirements for longevity.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
3/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
2/3 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The string identifies but does not match the name of
the community as defined in the application, and it is not a well-known short-form or abbreviation of thecommunity. The application received a score of 2 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive a partial score for Nexus, the applied-for string must identify the community. According to the
AGB, “‘Identify’ means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community
members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community.” In addition to meeting the criterion
for “identify”, in order to receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the nameof the community or be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community.
Because the community defined in the application is a collection of many categories of individuals andorganizations, and because there is no single entity that serves all of these categories in all their geographic
breadth, there is no “established name” for the applied-for string to match, as required by the AGB for a fullscore on Nexus. The community, as defined in the application, includes some entities that are only
tangentially related to music, such as accountants and lawyers, and which may not be automatically associatedwith the gTLD string. However, the applicant has limited the subset of such professionals included in thedefined community2. Moreover, the applicant has also included “musical groups and artists” and“independent music artists, performers, arrangers & composers” in its defined community. The string
MUSIC identifies these member categories, which include individuals and entities involved in the creation ofmusic. Thus the applied-for string does identify the individuals and organizations included in the applicant’s
defined community member categories due to their association with music, which the applicant defines as“the art of combining sounds rhythmically, melodically or harmonically” (Application, 20A).
The Panel determined that the applied-for string identifies (but does not match) the name of the community
as defined in the application without over-reaching substantially. It therefore partially meets the requirements
for Nexus.
2-B Uniqueness
1/1 Point(s)2 The applicant lists over 40 categories of community member and identifies each with a North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) code that is further narrowed by the applicant’s requirement that “only those that are
defined by and identify with the sub-set of the NAICS code that relates to “music” would qualify as a member of theCommunity.”
Page 5

The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Uniquenessas specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as thestring has no other significant meaning beyond identifying the community described in the application. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application. The string as defined in the application demonstrates
uniqueness, as the string does not have any other significant meaning beyond identifying the individuals,organizations, and activities associated with the music-related member categories defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applied-for string satisfies the condition to
fulfill the requirements for uniqueness.
Criterion #3: Registration Policies
4/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as eligibility is restricted to community members. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. According to the applicant, this requirement is met by verifying
registrants’ participation in one of the defined community member categories:
Registrants will be verified using Community-organized, unified “criteria taken from holistic
perspective with due regard of Community particularities” that “invoke a formal membership”
without discrimination, conflict of interest or “likelihood of material detriment to the rights andlegitimate interests” of the Community:(i) Qualification criteria as delineated by recognized NAICS codes corresponding to Community
member classification music entity types. (Application, 20A)
The Panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Name
Selection as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as name selection rules are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD.
The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants
must be consistent with the articulated, community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The applicant
has included in its application several name selection rules that are consistent with its community-based
purpose, which is “creating a trusted, safe online haven for music consumption” while ensuring thatmusicians’ rights are protected:
Names Selection Policy – to ensure only music-related names are registered as domains under.MUSIC, with the following restrictions:
1) A name of (entire or portion of) the musician, band, company, organization, e.g. the registrants“doing business as” name2) An acronym representing the registrant
3) A name that recognizes or generally describes the registrant, or4) A name related to the mission or activities of the registrant
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfied the condition to fulfill therequirements for Name Selection.
3-C Content and Use
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Content andPage 6

Use as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as
the rules for content and use are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
TLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies for content and use must be
consistent with the articulated, community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The application includes
several content and use requirements, all of which are consistent with its community-based purpose of“creating a trusted, safe online haven for music consumption” while ensuring that musicians’ rights areprotected:
The following use requirements apply:• Use only for music-related activities• Comply with applicable laws and regulations and not participate in, facilitate, or further illegal
activities• Do not post or submit content that is illegal, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous,
deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of anotherʹs privacy, or tortious• Respect the intellectual property rights of others by posting or submitting only content that is
owned, licensed, or otherwise have the right to post or submit• Immediately notify us if there is a security breach, other member incompliance or illegal activity on.MUSIC sites• Do not register a domain containing an established music brand’s name in bad faith that might bedeemed confusing to Internet users and the Music Community• Do not use any automated process to access or use the .MUSIC sites or any process, whether
automated or manual, to capture data or content from any service for any reason• Do not use any service or any process to damage, disable, impair, or otherwise attack .MUSIC sites
or the networks connected to .MUSIC sites (Application, 20E)
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfied the condition to fulfill therequirements for Content and Use.
3-D Enforcement
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Enforcement as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The application provides specific enforcement
measures and coherent and appropriate appeals mechanisms. The application received a score of 1 point
under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures for enforcing its
policies, including random compliance checks and special monitoring. The application also references adispute resolution process, and provides a clear description of an appeals process in the Public Interest
Commitments (PIC). The PIC was utilized to verify that the applicant has appropriate appeals mechanisms.
The Panel determined that the application satisfies both of the two requirements for Enforcement andtherefore scores 1 point.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
3/4 Point(s)Support for or opposition to a CPE gTLD application may come in any of three ways: through an applicationcomment on ICANN’s website, attachment to the application, or by correspondence with ICANN. The Panelreviews these comments and documents and, as applicable, attempts to verify them as per the guidelines
published on the ICANN CPE website. Further details and procedures regarding the review and verification
process may be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe.
The table below summarizes the review and verification of support and opposition documents for the
DotMusic Limited application for the string “MUSIC”. Note that some entities provided multiple letters of
support through one or more of the mechanisms noted above. In these cases, each letter is counted separately
in the table below. For example, if a letter of support from an entity was received via attachments, and a
Page 7

separate letter received via correspondence, each letter is counted as reviewed, valid for verification (whereappropriate), verification attempted (where appropriate) and successfully verified (where appropriate).
Summary of Review & Verification of Support/Opposition Materials as of 13 October 20153
Total Received andReviewed

Total Valid for
Verification

Verification
Attempted

Successfully
Verified

Application
Comments

157

0

0

0

Attachments to
20(f)

150

68

68

40

Correspondence4

331

160

160

40

Grand Total

638

228

228

80

4-A Support
1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Support specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as
there was documented support from at least one group with relevance. The application received a score of 1out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. In this context, “recognized” refers to the institution(s)/organization(s) that,through membership or otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of
the community. To receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from atleast one group with relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed by
the application’s defined community.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the applicant was not the recognizedcommunity institution(s)/member organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent thecommunity, or documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s).
The panel has not found evidence of a single such organization recognized by all of the defined community’s
members as representative of the defined community in its entirety. However, the applicant possesses
documented support from many groups with relevance; their verified documentation of support contained a
description of the process and rationale used in arriving at the expression of support, showing theirunderstanding of the implications of supporting the application. Despite the wide array of organizational
support, however, the applicant does not have the support from the recognized community institution, as
noted above, and the Panel has not found evidence that such an organization exists. The Community Priority
Evaluation Panel has determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition
2/2 Point(s)3 The table reflects all comments, attachments, and pieces of correspondence received by the Panel as of the date noted

pertaining to the application. The Verification Attempted column includes efforts made by the Panel to contact thoseentities that did not include contact information. ICANN notified the applicant on 4 December 2015 that although theapplicant submitted a high volume of correspondence, “Much of this correspondence was submitted well after thedeadline…any correspondence dated later than 13 October 2015 or submitted from today on will not go through thePanel’s verification process and may not be considered by the Panel.”
4 The Panel reviewed 53 pieces of correspondence that contained 331 individual letters.
Page 8

The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Opposition
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as theapplication did not receive any relevant verified opposition. The application received the maximum score of
2 points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one group of non-negligible size.
The application did not receive any letters of relevant and verified opposition. The Community Priority
Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant satisfied the requirements for Opposition.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the AGB or the Registry Agreement. For updated
application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the AGB and the ICANN New
gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page 9